, 1887-11-16
SPARKS RESIGNS.
The Land Commissioner Ready
to Step Out
He Says Lamar Has Not Faced
the Issue,
And the Question of Authority
Was Not Involved.
Sparks in His own Defense.

SRNA IL LILO DSlOhoS.
WASHINGTON, Nov. l5.-Laud Com
missioner Sparks this afternoon personally
delivered to the presid mt the following
letter, defending his course in the Chi
cage, st; Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha
railroad land grant case, and formally re-
signed his office:
GENERAL LAND OFFICE, Washington,
D. c., Nov. Is. lSS7.-Io the President:
The honorable secretary OF the interior
advises me by letter dated the 18th inst,
In effect, that he should on that date pre-
sent to you the alternative of selecting a
new secretary of the interior or a new
commissioner of the general land office.
Under the authority invested in the
commissioner by the laws, | had. previous
to September, 1887, made adjustments Of
certain land grants, two of which. known
as the Omaha cases, | had been specially
directed by the secretary to report. On
Oct. 7, 1887, two decisions of the secre-
tary were rendered in the Omaha cases,
In Omaha, non-concurring in my adjust
ment and everything the authority on
which they were based. He directed me
at the same time to cause the grants to be
adjusted in conformity with said decisions.
L now infer from his published letter that
the decisions were not approved by the
official law advisor for the department of
the interior.
The point at Issue relates to a claim of
the railroad company to indemnity for
lands that under the railroad granting
acts were reserved from the operation OF
these acts by the express terms of the
statutes. Previous to 1885 the lands that
had been reserved by the government for
Indian and other purposes, had been
ND = Mad nr AT -
both as granted lands and as indemnity
promiscuously with other lands. This
seems to have been done in pursuance of
the practice of giving railroad companies
whatever they asked for, apparently with
out much consideration of restriction and
limitation of grants. In that year title
to a large quantity Of such lands in the
state of Kansas, which had been so erro-
neouslv conveyed to the Leavenworth,
Lawrence q Galveston railroad company,
was decided invalid by the United States
supreme court. Since that date the lands
that were reserved at the date of the
grant or date of the definite location of
the roads, have been regarded and treated
in the decision and practice OF this office,
and the department is excluded not only
from all grants but from the indemnity
basis under all grants, wherein such re-
served lands are by the terms of law ''ex-
Guided ron the operation of the acts"
The secretary held in the Omaha cases
that the company was entitled to indem-
nifty for such lands. This decision, if adj
hered to, will have the effect to take from
the people many million acres of land
within the railroad indemnity limits, which
by your advice and with your approval, as
expressed in the Clifford Miller case, have
been proclaimed to the country as restored
to the public domain. The question of
the correctness of these decisions became
therefore a matter Of momentous concern.
If they correctly declare the law, these
lands belong to the railway companies; if
they Did not correctly declare the law, the
lands belonged to the people.
The Omaha decisions purDort to be
founded upon the decision OF the supreme
court in the case of the Winona Il st.
Peter Railroad company VS.. Barney, the
assertion being made that the plain Lam
guage' of the court in that case seems to
be conclusive of the questions presented
and also upon a certain rule of statutory
Interpretation relied upon as being an
axiom OF construction. SAID decisions
wero further enforced in reference to an
u~nreported decision of the United States
Circuit Court for Wisconsin, which was
said in the Omaha cases to be the judicial
instructions which seems to leave mo fur
Their room Tor discussion. 1t appeared
to me that the decision Of the supreme
court in the Barney case was absolutely
silent upon the question decided in the
Omaha cases and that not even the obiter
of the court sustained these decisions.
1t also appeared to me that the ques-
ton at issue was not in the case Ieclucd
by the circuit court for Wisconsin and it
seemed that the rule of STATUTORY inter-
probation adopted in the Omaha cases
was the opposite of the rule of construc,
ton adopted by the courts and laid down
by the law writers. | was, therefore, pro-
foundly convinced that the secretary had
been committed to errors of law, which,
if brought fully to his personal attention
might be corrected. 1t is the practice of
the department to permit representatives
of the railroad companies and other pri-
vate interests to apply TOR reviews and
reconslderations of decisions when the
questions are decided against such inter
ests. believed that as an officer of
the government having immediate guar.
dianship of such lands and immediate
charge of the issuance Of patents uuder
all grants OF land | had at least an equal
llBht WIN liz representative il bllNdlt
interests to ask the secretary to re exam
inc the departmental decision and | be-
lieved it especially proper to express my
views to the secretary in these cases, be-
cause if it had not been | would have
done so in the original instance if | had
anticipated the change of ruling and de-
cision upon the point in question.
Accordingly | personally expressed to
the secretary my desire to have a review
of the decision in these cases. He sug-
gested to me to let the matter rest for the
present, in which suggestion | cheertully
acquiesced. A formal application for re
view, couched in most respectful terms,
was completed about Oct. 20, but was not
made public until Nov. 10. | received a
note from the secretary, desiring me to
present what | had to say upon this sub
ject. My letter was accordingly signed
and delivered to him on the llth inst,